while conducting research or trials in homeopathy researchers should keep in mind different homeopathic concepts & design our trials accordingly wrong methodology ignoring the basic structure of homeopathy will give inaccurate results. sadly this has been the case with homeopathy till now. like homeopathy is highly individualised, though many pts suffering from same disease they are given different medicines based upon thier constitutional peculiarities,mental & emotional peculiarities,past medical history etc.so during trials if u give same drug based upon conventional diagnosis it will give inaccurate results.In homeopathy as i mentioned before there is no specific medicine for a given pathological condition so a homeopath each time has to select a appropriate,unique drug for each & every pt based upon his unique symptomatology(its like discovering a new drug for a given pt suitable to his unique constitution) after detailed case taking & analysis so in homeopathy role of a homeopath is very crucial & results changes with skill & experience of homeopath involved in trials.another point i want to make here is what type pts u select in trials is very important here according to homeopathy long term use of conventional drugs,type of pathology,family history,level of vitality etc determine the prognosis & pts during trials should be selected keeping in mind all these homeopathic concepts.most of the trials in homeopathy violate many of these crucial norms & trails in homeopathy so far not conducted in sophisticated manner because of lack of funding. plz refer www.vithuolkas.com- in homeoathy guidelines & a rescent study has shwn homeopathic drugs in high dilutions are effective on cancer cells refer www.pbhrfindia.org

The main contention of your argument can be succinctly rebutted by the following quote by Steven Novella, MD:

"...apologists for homeopathy often claim that research is negative because the homeopathic “remedies” tested were not properly individualized. Homeopathy is not like drugs, where you can have a one-size-fits-all approach. Every person needs their own personalized remedy. This, of course, is just more superstitious nonsense on the part of homeopaths, and a convenient bit of special pleading to explain away negative results. This claim is also incompatible with every homeopathic remedy on the market, like Quietus, which cannot be individualized. Internal consistency has never been the hallmark of quackery and pseudoscience."

In regards to the latter points you make about homeopathic trials not being done properly because of the lack of consideration being taken about the subjects' history:If homeopathic practitioners don't even know enough about their own field that they fail to even properly apply their own methodology during research, then that only speaks volumes about the ineptitude of homeopathic practitioners.Homeopaths like yourselves don't even have a foot to stand on when making such claims like this; because in order to know that certain things need to be considered (i.e., the subjects' history) in order for the efficacy of homeopathy to be demonstrated in trials, then you would need to have an understanding of the mechanism behind homeopathy. The problem is, there is none. There is no established mechanism for homeopathy.You throw out things like "family history" as if you knew *how* that affects the efficacy of homeopathy, but you don't. It's another cop-out response in order to explain away negative trials.

In regards to homeopathy curing cancer (http://www.pbhrfindia.org/index.php/Research-Initiatives/Malignant-Tumors-Banerji-Protocol/Malignant-Tumors-Banerji-Protocol.html), the link you've provided doesn't tell us anything. It doesn't have a methods, and it doesn't even tell us what dilution the homeopathic treatment was. It's utterly useless, except for propaganda purposes.

All of what I've said is entirely besides the point. It's not only that homeopathy has failed efficacy trials, but more importantly, it's utterly implausible - it violates chemistry. Anything that's over 12C dilution will likely not even have one molecule of active ingredient in it, meaning that it's only water.

A drug is made to cure a particular problem. Therefore if You have said problem (and the drug works) Then it should have an effect. How can an emotional peculiarity (i.e. patients personal perception) have an effect on what drug will work, you MORON. And if you are going to argue your point's in English speaking forums, please learn some grammar skills, reading your post makes me want to stick a fork in my eye.

And I do agree with MT, conventional medicine (most of the time) has a simple method. Find a receptor/ion channel/enzyme which gives a certain response, then design a chemical which fits into the active site and either blocks, activates, or dulls the natural response. But who knows, maybe homeopathy does have some really complex and unknown scientific mechanism of action? I was being taught about rheumatoid arthritis the other day by a rheumatologist, and one of the treatments was to inject a solution of gold! (It was an old treatment that has just continued to be used on a rare occasion). The funny thing is, is they don't actually understand the mechanism of how the gold relieves the symptoms/pain, they just know that for some people it works wonders - therefore if it works, use it. The point is, just because we don't understand something yet doesn't mean it doesn't work or we won't be able to understand it in the future. However, I personally think it is (most likely) a load of bollocks and would only recommend (and prescribe in a couple of years =D) conventional medicine.

Good call Li Cain Cho. To be honest, the reason I say "But who knows, maybe homeopathy does have some really complex and unknown scientific mechanism of action?", is just so I can cover all my bases. It's semi what they teach us at medical school - i.e. if a patient comes in who receives spiritual healing or homeopathy or any other alternative medicine, then it is the role of a Dr to try and combine conventional medicine with their individual beliefs. If I just simply said to a patient "I'm sorry but homeopathy is silly, hence you are silly" then that would likely dampen our relationship, and ultimately they may turn down conventional treatment etc etc. Patients need to know you are on their side, so telling them that their beliefs are wrong is a big "No-no". They exception is, is if you know that the alternative treatment they are receiving will interfere with the mode of action of the treatment you want to provide them with - it gets more complex in that situation. However, we know based on those trials that homeopathy has no mode of action, therefore, let them believe it!

Haha yeah, you don't need to think homeopathy is *not* silly just to be an accommodationist when treating patients. As long as you don't take it to a point where the patients health is at risk, there's not really a problem. So basically, I do agree that it's not the doctors place to question their patients beliefs, but I don't think that it's necessary to hold judgement on homeopathy.

Sorry about the multiple accounts - There was a reason for my fake chinese-name one, but I'd rather not go into it...

I'm against people being stupid, but I couldn't really care less about their stupidity if they kept it to themselves. Besides being used for humour among people who know better they would barely cross my mind. It's when they try and spread their stupidity that it really gets to me.

Argh! You all need to go and read J.G Frazer's "Golden Bough". Homeopathy is akin to homeopathic magic, which is just a step on the ladder along to religion and the science. Really some old-school Victorian anthropological brilliance in there if you can read past the Eurocentrism.